escalation policynut

[Bawhoppennn]

viewtopic.php?p=618331

As a non-antagonist you may begin conflict with another player with valid reason (refusal of critical services, belligerent attitude, etc) OR if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job. Whomever you engage is entitled to respond to your actions. If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for causing conflict in the first place, you may face administrative action.

If you are wronged, you are expected to handle the conflict non-lethally whenever possible, escalating in severity as the conflict continues. As the defending party the rate of escalation increases with you, up to and including violence, while the instigator is always able to respond in kind.

If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is killed, the living participant is expected to make an effort to revive the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist. Once revived the conflict is over; any new conflict with either individual must escalate once again. If you get into a conflict again with that individual, they may be removed permanently from the round.

These changes always worry me about how they'll work out in practice, but I think this will be an alright change personally.

[Bawhoppennn]

It's so easy to doublepost these days, darn

[Mothblocks]

This is already how everyone was treating it to my knowledge

[Archie700]

already we got our first victim
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30877

[Mothblocks]

Can you make a new post i look like a loser if I have a comment on my own peanut

[Archie700]

It's so clear cut that making a new one seems pointless but sure

[Mothblocks]

thank u so much archie

[Archie700]

your welcome now die moth

[Mothblocks]

D:

[Archie700]

Real opinion, given this appeal and attempt at lawyering, it should be reworded to this:
As a non-antagonist you may begin conflict with another player with valid reason (refusal of critical services, belligerent attitude, etc) OR if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job. Whomever you engage is entitled to respond to your actions. If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for causing conflict in the first place, you may face administrative action.

If you are wronged, you are expected to handle the conflict non-lethally whenever possible, escalating in severity as the conflict continues. As the defending party the rate of escalation increases with you, up to and including violence, while the instigator is always able to respond in kind.

If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is killed or incapacitated, the other participant or participants are expected to make an effort to treat the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist. Once treated the conflict is over; any new conflict with either individual must escalate once again. If you get into a conflict again with that individual, they may be removed permanently from the round.

[Bawhoppennn]

After seeing it in action with that example, I'm not really feeling that pleased with the new escalation policy after all. Escalation has always been a tricky topic to deal with policy-wise, but this seems now to be overly complicated and a bit too limiting towards naturally-developing conflict. I don't like how much it tries to funnel the path of escalation into being a clearcut route you mostly have to follow... It also seems like it really lends itself to significant rules-lawyering (though escalation policy always has), which isn't the best either in my opinion.

[Archie700]

After seeing it in action with that example, I'm not really feeling that pleased with the new escalation policy after all. Escalation has always been a tricky topic to deal with policy-wise, but this seems now to be overly complicated and a bit too limiting towards naturally-developing conflict. I don't like how much it tries to funnel the path of escalation into being a clearcut route you mostly have to follow... It also seems like it really lends itself to significant rules-lawyering (though escalation policy always has), which isn't the best either in my opinion.

I don't like how it's a full reset if either loses even if it's the instigator that wins.
If you instigate stuff for a bad reason then killing and reviving the person shouldn't be a de-escalation.
We need an explanation for instigation.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

After seeing it in action with that example, I'm not really feeling that pleased with the new escalation policy after all. Escalation has always been a tricky topic to deal with policy-wise, but this seems now to be overly complicated and a bit too limiting towards naturally-developing conflict. I don't like how much it tries to funnel the path of escalation into being a clearcut route you mostly have to follow... It also seems like it really lends itself to significant rules-lawyering (though escalation policy always has), which isn't the best either in my opinion.

I don't like how it's a full reset if either loses even if it's the instigator that wins.
If you instigate stuff for a bad reason then killing and reviving the person shouldn't be a de-escalation.
We need an explanation for instigation.

My reading on it isn't that it's a full reset, but that you have to work back up to violence. You're allowed to still be angry, and things can return to violence later, you just can't beeline right at them and immediately initiate combat.

[oranges]

up sinfulls note to a weekban because he is rules lawyering in a cringe fashion

[Boot]

There I am Gary there I am!

In all seriousness while I both love and hate Axle I do think he is within his rights to continue the escalation as he didn't die. I get that this is rules lawyering to the highest degree but with this being the new escalation policy I think its important to cross our t's and dot our i's here.

[Sylphet]

After seeing it in action with that example, I'm not really feeling that pleased with the new escalation policy after all.

It's one example, is the thing. There's always a lot of awkwardness to work out in new rules - just look at rule 11, that's taken a year and a half now and we're still arguing about whether ligger is an IC term. This appeal is not an example of overenforcement or anything, it's the rule finding its place and its precedent on a server that, at this point, has years of serial greytiding burned into its soul. It's only so drawn out because the heart of the issue is that the rule was not perfectly clear, and (I assume) sinful feels that they followed the policy, then got hit with a rule clarification part way through. Which is honestly fair, I read the rule as being very specific about killing at first too.

[Archie700]

After seeing it in action with that example, I'm not really feeling that pleased with the new escalation policy after all.

It's one example, is the thing. There's always a lot of awkwardness to work out in new rules - just look at rule 11, that's taken a year and a half now and we're still arguing about whether ligger is an IC term. This appeal is not an example of overenforcement or anything, it's the rule finding its place and its precedent on a server that, at this point, has years of serial greytiding burned into its soul. It's only so drawn out because the heart of the issue is that the rule was not perfectly clear, and (I assume) sinful feels that they followed the policy, then got hit with a rule clarification part way through. Which is honestly fair, I read the rule as being very specific about killing at first too.

Which is kind of the problem, because from the video, anyone would call "allow the critted to be brought out of engineering, and treated in medbay" de-escalation.
By the letter, this means ONLY killing counts, and not if person is critted or otherwise incapacitated (tied up, limb lost), even if the other party has taken steps to de-escalate.

[Pandarsenic]

Anyone who insists their foe should've killed them instead of just critting them if they wanted an escalation reset should be permabanned until they can appeal explaining why that goes against the spirit of the rule.

[Cobby]

After seeing it in action with that example, I'm not really feeling that pleased with the new escalation policy after all. Escalation has always been a tricky topic to deal with policy-wise, but this seems now to be overly complicated and a bit too limiting towards naturally-developing conflict. I don't like how much it tries to funnel the path of escalation into being a clearcut route you mostly have to follow... It also seems like it really lends itself to significant rules-lawyering (though escalation policy always has), which isn't the best either in my opinion.

there is no sweet spot you need to accept the premise that your policy either

1. promotes killbaiting
2. promotes banbaiting

and the reason why I actually enjoyed kor's wild westish style is because he picked 1 over 2 (but it doesnt matter because once he left admins just didnt enforce it as written).

The policy is either going to be too strict so it causes "he didnt follow the correct path despite me being insufferable" ahelps or its going to be """"too loose"""" which lets people get killed for less than ideal reasons. What I liked about kors policy was that it acknowledged that and told you straight up if you dont want to be baited then dont put yourself in the scenario (with ways to dance around it although not as reliable ie call security).

[massa]

If I've been pushed to the point that I kill someone (not as an instigator) or feel the need to, there is no way in hell I am going to drag them to medbay.

There's just no shot. Asking people to do that is incongruent with human nature and like, the logic underpinning killing them in the first place? I'm pretty chill, if you've managed to get me to kill you as a non-antag there's just no shot I'm going out of my way to reintroduce that into the round. You earned your fucking time out. It's weird and it's like it wasn't written with actual people in mind. Very strange and sterile, very unnatural behavior and thing to ask of people put in that situation.

[Bawhoppennn]

After seeing it in action with that example, I'm not really feeling that pleased with the new escalation policy after all.

It's one example, is the thing. There's always a lot of awkwardness to work out in new rules - just look at rule 11, that's taken a year and a half now and we're still arguing about whether ligger is an IC term. This appeal is not an example of overenforcement or anything, it's the rule finding its place and its precedent on a server that, at this point, has years of serial greytiding burned into its soul. It's only so drawn out because the heart of the issue is that the rule was not perfectly clear, and (I assume) sinful feels that they followed the policy, then got hit with a rule clarification part way through. Which is honestly fair, I read the rule as being very specific about killing at first too.

There's always awkwardness to settle out and it's not fully clear how it'll end up finally, though I am kinda concerned still that it'll be too far-reaching in its application. I am often one to err on the side of more freedom over the potential of more-restrictiveness, and there's some hints here that it really could be quite restrictive to naturally developing conflict (which is something I think very important in game). I don't think Sinful was necessarily right, but personally this first example shows that it has some potential for being used broadly, and more than I think I personally prefer. Also although precedents and wording tweaks might clear it up, I think this new version lends itself to rules-lawyering too much. Rules lawyering is really unfun.

After seeing it in action with that example, I'm not really feeling that pleased with the new escalation policy after all. Escalation has always been a tricky topic to deal with policy-wise, but this seems now to be overly complicated and a bit too limiting towards naturally-developing conflict. I don't like how much it tries to funnel the path of escalation into being a clearcut route you mostly have to follow... It also seems like it really lends itself to significant rules-lawyering (though escalation policy always has), which isn't the best either in my opinion.

there is no sweet spot you need to accept the premise that your policy either

1. promotes killbaiting
2. promotes banbaiting

and the reason why I actually enjoyed kor's wild westish style is because he picked 1 over 2 (but it doesnt matter because once he left admins just didnt enforce it as written).

The policy is either going to be too strict so it causes "he didnt follow the correct path despite me being insufferable" ahelps or its going to be """"too loose"""" which lets people get killed for less than ideal reasons. What I liked about kors policy was that it acknowledged that and told you straight up if you dont want to be baited then dont put yourself in the scenario (with ways to dance around it although not as reliable ie call security).

I agree with Cobblestone as is often the case